Developing a plan for D2.0: Getting everything on the table

[bearophile]

Leandro Lucarella:
> And even for things that are relevant to the language, I don't think
> D should be attached to *any* backend, not DMD, not LLVM. Things required
> by the specification should be doable in any backend if you plan to see
> more compilers in the future.

I agree that restricting D to just the single LLVM is bad, but doing the opposite too is bad: if you look just for the greatest common divisor among back-ends then you probably have to remove from the D specs the "real" type, because I think GCC can't implement them well. So some compromise have to be found.
And generally having a good open-source reference implementation of a language is better than having three weak implementations (some dynamic languages survive fine for years with just one reference implementation, and they often don't even have formal specs).

Bye,
bearophile